Definitions
brunumb wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:10 pmNon-physical, then, would be something like: relating to things not perceived through the senses. A synonym would be immaterial. Something other than matter.
Energy is not matter, although it may be considered as an alternative form of matter since the two are inter-convertible. I do not consider energy as non-physical. What I don't understand is the existence of things that are not made of 'anything', the immaterial. If God exists it must consist of something rather than nothing. That something should have properties and therefore theoretically able to be examined even if we don't have the technology to do that now. Do you consider an immaterial God to be composed of something like another unidentified form of energy?
I understand energy to be a property that matter has. Energy can thus be examined. Immaterial does not equate to "not being made of anything," it equates to "not being made of anything physical or having no physical properties, such as energy." Being immaterial is still consisting of something, just not something physical. Our technology made to
physically examine something, logically, couldn't work.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Critique #1: I'm shifting the burden
Tcg wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:00 amWhat is the most reasonable thing to believe concerning the first premise?
You've failed to support the claim contained in the first unsupported assertion and are now turning to me for help? As I'm sure you are aware it is not my duty to support your claim, but rather yours.
That's not what that question meant. I clearly gave two lines of support in post 52 (look for where it says "First,..." and then "Second,..."). I didn't ask you to offer a reason for my case. I'm saying that given our two options:
(a) Something can come into being from nothing uncaused.
(b) Something can't come into being from nothing uncaused.
and based on the two lines of support I gave (and anything else you want to bring in), which of these two is the more reasonable thing to believe? I think it is clearly (b). If you think I've failed to support this claim, then respond to the points I've said to show how it fails or bring in new information that changes the picture. But I'm clearly not shifting the burden.
Critique #2: Metaphysical intuition carries little weight
brunumb wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 5:58 pmHow much weight are we supposed to put on
metaphysical intuition as evidence of anything? It does not demonstrate that something cannot pop into being out of nothing, caused or not.
Metaphysical intuition can certainly play a role in how reasonable one option is over the alternatives. They arise out of our experience of things or knowledge of what concepts mean and entail. We are rational to trust them until we are shown defeaters for such principles.
But I didn't just use metaphysical intuition as support for (b), anyway. I also pointed to the constant confirmation of science towards (b) rather than (a). Science is built on the causal principle. Do people really want to say that this principle should be rejected as true? If so, then you are rejecting much in science.
Critique #3: Some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics disprove this premise
Goat wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:07 pmYou made a claim. That claim is 'Everything that beings to exist has a cause'. How do you know that? Can you show that to be true? Now, the first premise might be true in classical physics, but it is denied in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. In 2015, they were able to detect and manipulate virtual particles. Let's see you show the cause of virtual particles. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics are that they have no cause.
There is a difference between an interpretation and the truth. Many scientists today are doubting the traditional Copenhagen interpretation and exploring deterministic theories like Bohm's. Quantum cosmologists are especially wary of the Copenhagen interpretation because it would require an observer existing outside of the known universe to collapse the wave function of the universe.
But let's assume indeterminism. Even on that interpretation virtual particles don't come into being out of nothing. They are spontaneous fluctuations of the energy in a subatomic vacuum. The vacuum is an inderterministic cause of their origination. The vacuum is not "nothing," it has a structure and is subject to physical laws. Thus the principle remains.